set_admin_mfa

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real operational context: dry_run is the default and only shows the change, prerequisites are validated first, and it warns to test a login in a private window before closing the current session (an implicit lockout-risk disclosure). It omits required privilege level and whether disabling takes effect immediately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and method matrix, then the prerequisite check, then the safe-usage tip. The opening sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers method selection, per-method prerequisites, and the dry_run safety default. It leaves auth/permission requirements and the effect on active sessions unstated, but the core invocation guidance is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by binding method values to their dependent parameters (fortitoken→serial, email→email_to, sms→sms_phone) and restating the dry_run default. That dependency mapping is not explicit in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (turn on/disable) and resource (two-factor authentication for an administrator), and enumerates the three supported methods. An agent can distinguish this from sibling admin tools like audit_admin_access or list_admin_sessions without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives per-method conditions clearly: fortitoken needs an activated token serial, email needs email_to plus a working email server, sms needs sms_phone plus SMS service. It also notes prerequisites are checked first. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling overlaps this function, so context is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.